This invention relates generally to removal of facial hair by means of authentically duplicating the exact motions performed by a licensed aesthetician during the threading process. More specifically the present invention relates to self threading using a loop of thread with one knot while avoiding cuts and pains on the fingers during the procedure.
Hair threading is a widespread and very old technique of hair removal originating somewhere in India and the Middle East. Today we have seen an increase of threading being performed in beauty salons, however, due to the economy self threading to become more popular. Although self threading with the use of a piece of thread tied in a loop is an effective way of removing hair it is very painful as it cuts into the skin of the thumbs and index/middle fingers. Self threading is performed by cutting a piece of thread 2 feet long; knotting the ends together to form a loop. Holding one side of the loop in the left hand, using the right hand to twist the loop several times over and then pick up the other side. The loop should look like a large infinity symbol, with two teardrops on their sides facing in toward the twisted string that connects them. By placing the fingers inside the two teardrop shapes and by spreading out the fingers on one hand while bringing the fingers on the other hand close together while rolling the twisted thread over the hair and sliding the twisted thread from one hand to the other, the hair will be pulled out. The thread needs to be rolled over the skin several times to complete a desired area and causes cuts and pain in the fingers.
Various types of mechanical threading devices have been proposed and are known in the marketplace.
U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20090030430 to Levi (2009) demonstrates a manual hair threading apparatus. The disadvantages of the device are that:
(a) It is single handed and therefore cannot give a smooth and long glide with tension along the skin thus removing just a couple of hairs at a time.
(b) It is not practical to use in places such as the eyebrows since the housing is distracting and possibly dangerous hovering just above and below the eye.
    U.S. Pat. No 5951573 to Yashar (1999) and U.S. Pat. No 5908425 to Adam (1999) have the same disadvantages as disclosed with the above reference to Levi.    U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20090012535 to Sun; Anita Schu-chiamet al. (2009). The disadvantages of the device are that:(a) The product itself is so large and bulky and doesn't allow for precise removal of individual hair. It removes any and all hairs in its path.(b) Also not practical for the eyebrows because of its size and housing.(c) Also only 2 of the arms are mobile thus limiting control and length of the string as well as the openings at opposite ends,